ZAPRUDER FRAME # 374 & a few others

[Craig Lamson]

Raymond, They cleaned up the film! What do you expect? Apparently, you have never read HOAX (2003) or you would know that Secret Service agents, observing the braids blow out across the back of the limo's trunk, became nauseated. If you are not going to read the most important book--which is chock full of proofs of alteration--then at least spare us your incredibly ignorant and uninformed questions. You are obviously not serious about any of this, which leads me to suggest that you really ought to find better ways to spend your copious free time. If you cannot see through Lamson and his masquerades, then that confirms my belief that you are not cut out for this. Seriously.

Ah yes the fallback position of last resort for alterationists...THEY ALTERED IT!

Anyways did you miss this AGAIN?

It appears you missed this post or it is just too tough a question so you avoided it, but in either case, here it is again...

Ah no Jim, I've made no claims about 372 and 374. I have however asked you more than once exactly HOW your ruled out that what you see behind JFK's right ear in 372 and 374 is not just blood and brain matter leaking down via gravity from the head wound seen above his ear? And if this might be brain and blood, how can you rule out the timing of its visability as simply the time required for it to get there?

It's a simple question Jim, one I'm sure you can answer.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dolva (or whoever you are), the question of good/better/best is relative to some objective or standard and the available alternative options. A hammer, for example, might be best for driving nails, not so good as a doorstop, and functional as a paperweight. If a nailgun were available, however, and there were many nails to drive, then it might not be the best, since time and effort could be saved by using the nailgun instead. Are you following me?

Apart from "inside baseball", for most purposes of viewing a version of the Zapruder film--and, in case you don't know it, there are several, which I discuss in "Which Film is 'the Zapruder Film'?" in HOAX (2003), where I shall assume that, like most others on this forum, you have never read it--if I grant you the benefit of the doubt, which you have not earned, then the differences between them for most general purposes favor the Costella version.

The reasons include that he has restored missing frames, corrected the order of those in the wrong sequence, and corrected for pincushion and aspect ratio distortion, which means that, for most purposes, the Costella combined cut is the best version available for public viewing. Moreover, it has the additional advantage of being available on a public web site at no charge at http://assassinationscience.com. It appears to be the best available alternative.

That is, of course, if you want to view the best available version which is available free for viewing. The 4x5 slide transparencies, for example, are incomplete (have missing frames), are not sequential (since some of them are in the wrong order), and have not been corrected for pincushion or aspect ratio distortion. That makes the 4x5 set at The 6th Floor Museum a poor choice for public viewing. In fact, they are not generally available for viewing.

Now if someone is doing research on technical aspects of the film, then, since the 4x5 transparencies are closer in generation to the "original"--which appears to have been fabricated at Hawkeye Works in Rochester--then the 4x5 transparencies may be highly useful for research purposes. When the Hollywood experts observed that the blow out at the back of the head had been painted in, it was useful for David Mantik to confirm their finding using them.

Since I doubt that your question was sincere, I am harboring no illusions that you will not come back with some shallow, smart remark. That appears implicit in the question as you phrased it. The fact of the matter is that one version of the film may be better for some purposes and others for other. The 6k version, for example, appears to have been the best for the Hollywood experts to study, given their objectives. So that's my answer to your query.

That definitely needs logging.

post Today, 02:02 PM

Post #40

(Jim)

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 621

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

Given the meaning of the term "alteration" in this context, which has to be known to you, you are combing a trivial truth (the new images are not the same as the originals) with a significant falsehood (they are thereby enhanced rather than distorted). I take exception to your untoward remark that you "don't think" it was Costella's' intent to deliberately falsify the film. Since he included the ghost images, restored the missing frames, and corrected for pincushion and aspect ratio distortion, that much is obvious. In light of the missing frames, out of sequence frames, and other problems with the MPI 4x5 scans (which are addressed in other threads, but with which I assume you are familiar), I take it that the Costella combined edit is the best version of the Zapruder film available--even though, for specific purposes, the MPI scans can be useful in corroborating discoveries such as those made by the Hollywood experts, who observed that the blow-out to the back of the head had been painted over in black, which David Mantik confirmed using the 4x5 scans. If we agree on all of these points, then fine. But your use of the word is highly inappropriate, in my view. I recommend using the term "corrected" as more accurate terminology.

QUOTE (John Dolva @ Jan 30 2010, 06:33 AM) *

That's ok Jim, we haven't communicated for a coupla years I think.

You mean deliberately falsify? I don't think that was Costellas intent. However strictly they are false for the reasons I mentioned, ie altered. It doesn't make the images, except in a gross sense, closer to the original subject. So I suppose in that sense they are enhanced but the massive data loss, creation, in the process, takes them further away from the original film of the original subject. Detail loss cannot be denied.

duh.. I almost take exception to your exception, Jim.

So, in your opinion Costellas distorted/altered images are the best Z frames available? Correct?

Edited January 30, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The premise of the original argument was that THIS FRAME had escaped the alterationists' attention, and that this ONE GENUINE FRAME seems to show a massive defect in the back of the head. This genuine frame, supposedly, PROVES THAT THE REST OF THE FILM is faked, Dr. Fetzer assured us earlier.

Now he hums a different tune: We can't see blood or brain tissue because THIS FRAME TOO WAS ALTERED. Just that they messed up the alteration by painting out ONLY the blood and brain tissue, but leaving the "gaping wound" behind

for all to see in broad daylight.

Why can't anyone offer a CREDIBLE challenge to Craig's claim that the blowout is only sunlight?

Because sunlight is all it is.

Craig has proven, by simply adding an outline round JFK's head, that THE BLOWOUT IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.

If you disagree ask your kids, parents, brothers sisters, friends, aunts and uncles.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Have you not been reading the posts on this thread? Here's one where I answered your question (twice, in fact,

in #34 and #36):

Bernice, Nice shots. Bear in mind, of course, that the Groden color photo next to the LIFE cover is a fake photograph, which appears to have been intended to complement the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (i) the blow-out to the right front painted into the film, (ii) the missing mass in the X-rays at the right-front, (iii) the caption for Frame 313 in LIFE, and (iv) Zapruder's appearance on television, where he puts his right-hand to the right-front of his head to illustrate where the blow out occurred. Except, of course, we know it didn't happen. Jackie, of course, explained that, from the front, he looked just fine--which would not have been the case if he had a massive blow-out to the right-front of his skull. The witnesses who observed the wound, as seen on page 358, were uniform in showing that it had been at the back of his head. The drawings by Crenshaw and by McClelland, which are on pages 357 and 359, show the blow-out at the back of the head. And notice how closely David Mantik's identification of the area of the X-ray that had been "patched"--which he labels "Area P" on page 359--corresponds to the blow-out as it can be seen in frame 374 on page 360. Since the blow-out is not seen in earlier frames where it should have been conspicuous, it is not rocket science to infer that it has been obfuscated in those frames, no doubt, as the Hollywood experts have explained, by being painted over in black--a crude but effective image, until you take a closer look! And the wound assumes a certain clarity and coherence.

Now I imagine you can find the posts where Jack put up pages 357 through 360 from "Dealey Plaza Revisited", horizontally and vertically.

Raymond, They cleaned up the film! What do you expect? Apparently, you have never read HOAX (2003) or you would know that Secret Service agents, observing the braids blow out across the back of the limo's trunk, became nauseated. If you are not going to read the most important book--which is chock full of proofs of alteration--then at least spare us your incredibly ignorant and uninformed questions. You are obviously not serious about any of this, which leads me to suggest that you really ought to find better ways to spend your copious free time. If you cannot see through Lamson and his masquerades, then that confirms my belief that you are not cut out for this. Seriously.

Ah yes the fallback position of last resort for alterationists...THEY ALTERED IT!

Anyways did you miss this AGAIN?

It appears you missed this post or it is just too tough a question so you avoided it, but in either case, here it is again...

Ah no Jim, I've made no claims about 372 and 374. I have however asked you more than once exactly HOW your ruled out that what you see behind JFK's right ear in 372 and 374 is not just blood and brain matter leaking down via gravity from the head wound seen above his ear? And if this might be brain and blood, how can you rule out the timing of its visability as simply the time required for it to get there?

It's a simple question Jim, one I'm sure you can answer.

[Craig Lamson]

The 4x5 slide transparencies, for example, are incomplete (have missing frames), are not sequential (since some of them are in the wrong order), and have not been corrected for pincushion or aspect ratio distortion. That makes the 4x5 set at The 6th Floor Museum a poor choice for public viewing. In fact, they are not generally available for viewing.

Spin it unti lthe cows come home Jim, but Costella made drastic alterations to the Zapruder film frames. The problem with said alterations is that many people just don't understand what has been altered and how than might effect research. Witness Lifton's ignornance of the process on display in the FLUSHING thread. A stunning thing to see, coming from one of your own horde.

But I digress. Notice the bolded setcion of your quote above. Even the great and wise James Fetzer, PhD. cannot understand alterations Costella applied to the Zapruder film frames and how it relates to the original film frames as copied by MPI.

You know if you plan on making an argument, its first best to understand what it is you are arguing.

I must admit however I do enjoy seeing you with your foot planted deep...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Of course, Raymond! That's why more than forty witnesses reported the blow out at the back of his head, including the physicians at Parkland, as Gary Aguiilar, M.D.--who is a buddy of Tink, by the way--explained in his chapter in MURDER (2000). And of course the McClelland diagram and the Crenshaw diagrams show a massive blow out in the same location. And David Mantik's meticulous study of the cranial X-ray defines an area with the same general features--looking rather like a cashew--which corresponds almost exactly to the blow out seen in the frame! That there are other frames, such as 372, in which it can also be seen is further confirmation.

According to you, J. Raymond Carroll, however, this is just sunlight reflecting off the back of the head. So what were all these witnesses reporting? They were not in the position to observe sunlight reflecting off the back of the head. Indeed, they were reporting their own observations of the massive defect at the back of his head. That includes the physicians at Parkland. McClelland and Crenshaw were not drawing diagrams of sunlight reflected off the back of his head! And Manitk's studies confirmed it! The blow out to the left/rear that hit Officer Hargis so hard he thought he himself had been shot was not sunlight either. Your position, alas, verges on absurdity.

The premise of the original argument was that THIS FRAME had escaped the alterationists' attention, and that this ONE GENUINE FRAME seems to show a massive defect in the back of the head. This genuine frame, supposedly, PROVES THAT THE REST OF THE FILM is faked, Dr. Fetzer assured us earlier.

Now he hums a different tune: We can't see blood or brain tissue because THIS FRAME TOO WAS ALTERED. Just that they messed up the alteration by painting out ONLY the blood and brain tissue, but leaving the "gaping wound" behind

for all to see in broad daylight.

Why can't anyone offer a CREDIBLE challenge to Craig's claim that the blowout is only sunlight?

Because sunlight is all it is.

Craig has proven, by simply adding an outline round JFK's head, that THE BLOWOUT IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.

If you disagree ask your kids, parents, brothers sisters, friends, aunts and uncles.

Edited January 31, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Bernice Moore]

ray check out below for your info all through these it is repeated the large defect or words to that effect was blown out...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=84...racy&hl=en#

GRODEN'S CASE FOR CONSPIRACY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs

parkland doctors head wound Blown out...

i have been checking out the frames before 313...The only thing that is well delineated imo is the black patch at the back of his head. In the frames leading up to 313, that general area is brown – the color of his hair -- not black…Check them out...imo...

B

the photo frames below have been inverted..imo what a mess they made came to mind...take care all b

Edited January 31, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[J. Raymond Carroll]

more than forty witnesses reported the blow out at the back of his head

That may well be, and a dozen witnesses may claim they remember seeing Lee Oswald shooting Tippit. As Charles Sandrers Peirce pointed out, and as experiments now prove, witnesses may ALL be mistaken in their memories, and for the same reasons.

The blow out to the left/rear that hit Officer Hargis so hard he thought he himself had been shot was not sunlight either.

Agreed that Hargis was hit by more than sunlight. He was hit by the brain matter blown out by the exploding bullet to the right temple that splattered back to the left as JFK was thrown backwards by the force.

I submit that no one has so far offered a CREDIBLE challenge to Lamson's SUNLIGHT explanation for the so-called "gaping wound" in the BACK of the head seen in this ZFILM frame.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

All you have are cheap, shallow, crappy, tiny points that are intended to suggest that you actually have answers to overwhelming proof of fabrication. Is there no more substance to you than that? Do those who actually know you regard you as a cheap, shallow, crappy, tiny person--actually, one of the smallest men on the entire planet Earth?

Tell me this, Lamson. Is Raymond in on the scam? Does he understand that all these miniscule points you make are merely intended to create the impression of uncertainty in the beliefs of the weakminded? Or are you simply playing Raymond for a sap? Is that it? You obviously know the answer. It's a simple question. Why don't you answer it?

The 4x5 slide transparencies, for example, are incomplete (have missing frames), are not sequential (since some of them are in the wrong order), and have not been corrected for pincushion or aspect ratio distortion. That makes the 4x5 set at The 6th Floor Museum a poor choice for public viewing. In fact, they are not generally available for viewing.

Spin it unti lthe cows come home Jim, but Costella made drastic alterations to the Zapruder film frames. The problem with said alterations is that many people just don't understand what has been altered and how than might effect research. Witness Lifton's ignornance of the process on display in the FLUSHING thread. A stunning thing to see, coming from one of your own horde.

But I digress. Notice the bolded setcion of your quote above. Even the great and wise James Fetzer, PhD. cannot understand alterations Costella applied to the Zapruder film frames and how it relates to the original film frames as copied by MPI.

You know if you plan on making an argument, its first best to understand what it is you are arguing.

I must admit however I do enjoy seeing you with your foot planted deep...

Edited January 31, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Dr. Fetzer's website suggests that he has taught students about the great logician, Charles Sanders Peirce.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.d....UTF-8&hl=en

And yet when I quote Peirce's advice in the context of ZFILM alteration, Dr. Fetzer responds:

All you have are cheap, shallow, crappy, tiny points....

Did Fetzer teach his students that Peirce's philosophy is cheap, shallow, etc...?????

On the FULL FLUSH thread tonight Josiah Thompson wrote something that I suspect only fueled Fetzer's irrational anger towards me:

Every time the Z film is tested in this way and passes the test, it increases the probability that it is authentic. That’s what empirical tests do. ... it has nothing to do with faith.

OR ANGER

[Craig Lamson]

All you have are cheap, shallow, crappy, tiny points that are intended to suggest that you actually have answers to overwhelming proof of fabrication. Is there no more substance to you than that? Do those who actually know you regard you as a cheap, shallow, crappy, tiny person--actually, one of the smallest men on the entire planet Earth?

Tell me this, Lamson. Is Raymond in on the scam? Does he understand that all these miniscule points you make are merely intended to create the impression of uncertainty in the beliefs of the weakminded? Or are you simply playing Raymond for a sap? Is that it? You obviously know the answer. It's a simple question. Why don't you answer it?

Wow...one of the smallest men on the planet? Thats a good one!. You appear to be quaking in fear! So interesting to see you resort to that rather than deal honestly with your failures (and Liftons) at understanding the very work you parrot and pimp. Struck a nerve eh Jim?

There is nothing uncertain in my works Jim, quite the opposite. That the works cast great uncertainty on yours is a real bonus. Could not happen to a nicer group of guys, if you know what I mean.

Everyone can think and decide for themself. Ray surely can.

BTW, this is still unanswered...Is there a problem on your part dealing honestly with this?

It appears you missed this post or it is just too tough a question so you avoided it, but in either case, here it is again...

Ah no Jim, I've made no claims about 372 and 374. I have however asked you more than once exactly HOW your ruled out that what you see behind JFK's right ear in 372 and 374 is not just blood and brain matter leaking down via gravity from the head wound seen above his ear? And if this might be brain and blood, how can you rule out the timing of its visability as simply the time required for it to get there?

It's a simple question Jim, one I'm sure you can answer.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Why are you responding to a post for Lamson as though it were directed at you? I think you may have answered my question:

All you have are cheap, shallow, crappy, tiny points that are intended to suggest that you actually have answers to overwhelming proof of fabrication. Is there no more substance to you than that? Do those who actually know you regard you as a cheap, shallow, crappy, tiny person--actually, one of the smallest men on the entire planet Earth?

Tell me this, Lamson. Is Raymond in on the scam? Does he understand that all these miniscule points you make are merely intended to create the impression of uncertainty in the beliefs of the weakminded? Or are you simply playing Raymond for a sap? Is that it? You obviously know the answer. It's a simple question. Why don't you answer it?

Dr. Fetzer's website suggests that he has taught students about the great logician, Charles Sanders Peirce.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.d....UTF-8&hl=en

And yet when I quote Peirce's advice in the context of ZFILM alteration, Dr. Fetzer responds:

All you have are cheap, shallow, crappy, tiny points....

Did Fetzer teach his students that Peirce's philosophy is cheap, shallow, etc...?????

On the FULL FLUSH thread tonight Josiah Thompson wrote something that I suspect only fueled Fetzer's irrational anger towards me:

Every time the Z film is tested in this way and passes the test, it increases the probability that it is authentic. That’s what empirical tests do. ... it has nothing to do with faith.

OR ANGER

[Craig Lamson]

OR ANGER

Exactly Ray! Fetzer is losing and it's drving him crazy!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Why are you responding to a post for Lamson as though it were directed at you?

Bacause the post in question included this obnoxious insinuation directed at me:

Is Raymond in on the scam?

I think I mentioned Fetzer's ANGER problem earlier. Let me also mention his difficulties with ordinary perception and cognition.

[Craig Lamson]

Is Raymond in on the scam? Does he understand that all these miniscule points you make are merely intended to create the impression of uncertainty in the beliefs of the weakminded? Or are you simply playing Raymond for a sap? Is that it? You obviously know the answer. It's a simple question. Why don't you answer it?[/i]

Sorry Jim I did not answer this one...Ray and I agree on almost nothing and we stand as pretty much opposites. If Ray has taken this opinion, he has taken it of his own free will.

Now with that out of the way, may I remind you of a question you have loeft unanswered more than a few times...

It appears you missed this post or it is just too tough a question so you avoided it, but in either case, here it is again...

Ah no Jim, I've made no claims about 372 and 374. I have however asked you more than once exactly HOW your ruled out that what you see behind JFK's right ear in 372 and 374 is not just blood and brain matter leaking down via gravity from the head wound seen above his ear? And if this might be brain and blood, how can you rule out the timing of its visability as simply the time required for it to get there?

It's a simple question Jim, one I'm sure you can answer.